M Monochrom - Scarily Good....

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And you know this because . . . ? The lighting looks very similar to me. Standard theater floods in a darkened theater. The only obvious difference appears to be that a lot of the lights in the pictures I linked to have color filters on them, whereas in the MM shots we don't really know whether they had filters or not. The M9 files do appear to be somewhat underexposed, if that is what you mean by "set for holding highlights." But interestingly, I note many more blown out highlights in those pictures than the MM pictures, not to mention the lack of shadow detail in the M9 shots. But the biggest difference I notice between the two is the huge amount of noise in the M9 pictures, which is entirely absent in the MM pictures. Since we know the MM pictures were shot between 1600 and 2500 ISO, I think it is fair to say that we would see all this noise had the M9 been shot in exactly the same lighting as the MM shots. The M9 is just incredibly noisy at those ISOs. The MM obviously is not.

 

Dirk, I don't agree with your analysis, sorry, and I'm afraid you're missing a few points. When I say the light is totally different, I don't mean the actual source. We all know ?standard theatrical floods in a darkened theatre" output more or less light depending on how they're set, gelled, and controlled.

 

My observation, however is not about the source (which doesn't matter that much) but on the subjects: how the light is interacting with them is totally and completely different.

 

Now, how can I tell the M9 has been exposed differently (or perhaps, processed badly)? Precisely because given the mid-grays and upper quartertones of the image (not the speculars) they've been held while the shadows have been buried. That's a function of exposure and that's it.

 

Note I'm not saying the M9 isn't noisier than the MM. It is, no doubt, and the raw files I've worked with prove to my satisfaction. But to characterize the M9 as poor at ISO 800 or 1600 just isn't accurate. The MM might be "night and day more forgiving" but "night and day" better, in this regard, at reasonably high ISOs, to my eyes, it is not.

 

Finally, on my monitors, which are set to emulate what I can actually print and not the extreme contrast ratios and illuminations many people assume are somehow illustrative of quality, I actually don't really see that much difference in noise (certainly not a large printable difference), even in your (web-sized) comparisons. I don't know what your monitor is illuminating, but I suspect a lot of complaints (or gushes) over high ISO capability is due to an illumination point I'd never set to begin with (because it's not reproducible except on that monitor; certainly not in print).

 

Anyway--cheers! Enjoy your camera and I'll enjoy mine. I'm looking forward to seeing the new M once it arrives, and seeing if they get the colour right.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Dirk Mandeville]

Anyway--cheers! Enjoy your camera and I'll enjoy mine. I'm looking forward to seeing the new M once it arrives, and seeing if they get the colour right.

 

Absolutely. I love the M9, although I do feel a little constrained by its ISO limitations, but no more than I was when I shot with film. I am looking forward to the new M, which I have on preorder. If it proves satisfactory, I am pretty sure I will trade my M9 out for an MM. From what I have seen, the difference really is night and day between the two for low light shooting. Jamie, I understand your point that the M9 is satisfactory to you at high ISO's but I think you are decidedly in the minority here. Most comments I have read from others on the subject have expressed otherwise. Regardless, for me it is just too noisy above ISO 800. I expect the new M will be decidedly better in this regard.

[Guest WPalank]

Unfortunately i cannot post images from my d40 here...

Andy

 

I'm sure you can post a link, if you chose to do so. However, something tells me we will never see them ...I.e. dog ate the files, fire destroyed the computer, etc.

 

You could actually place your website as part of your signature with a link. I would really like to see these Andy.

[jaapv]

Absolutely. I love the M9, although I do feel a little constrained by its ISO limitations, but no more than I was when I shot with film. I am looking forward to the new M, which I have on preorder. If it proves satisfactory, I am pretty sure I will trade my M9 out for an MM. From what I have seen, the difference really is night and day between the two for low light shooting. Jamie, I understand your point that the M9 is satisfactory to you at high ISO's but I think you are decidedly in the minority here. Most comments I have read from others on the subject have expressed otherwise. Regardless, for me it is just too noisy above ISO 800. I expect the new M will be decidedly better in this regard.

I am with Jamie here. If people claim the M9 is noisy above 800 there is a problem somewhere in the setup. I find the explanation of monitor calibration interesting, I never came across it before in this context. It makes sense. Yet I tend to seek the cause in the initial exposure. The M9 has an exposure meter that needs user interpretation to be flawless

The M will surely be more tolerant due to the extended ISO range, but the exposure meter will be the same, so we will see the same discussions at a stop or two higher ISO level.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I am with Jamie here. If people claim the M9 is noisy above 800 there is a problem somewhere in the setup. I find the explanation of monitor calibration interesting, I never came across it before in this context. It makes sense. Yet I tend to seek the cause in the initial exposure. The M9 has an exposure meter that needs user interpretation to be flawless

The M will surely be more tolerant due to the extended ISO range, but the exposure meter will be the same, so we will see the same discussions at a stop or two higher ISO level.

 

There is no problem with the setup. It is a problem with the sensor. Even Puts found that with his tests. The usable dynamic range for M8 & M9 for maximum quality at higher ISOs is extremely limited as compared to other full frame sensor cameras. And it has nothing to do with monitor calibration, either. I have a NEC Colorsync monitor with Spectraview calibration, and I see the noise just as clearly as with any other monitor. At higher ISO's, I can clearly see the noise in the sky on a well-exposed landscape photo on a sunlit day. So it is not exposure. (I know this from experience as I forgot to change the ISO back down from 800 after going from inside to outside on a sunny day).

 

Honestly, what it has to do with is your own personal level of comfort with noise/grain in your photography. If you don't mind a little noise in your photograph, that is fine. That is a personal subjective thing. But don't try to pretend there isn't noise in an M9 photograph at ISO's above 800, or that if there is it is just because the photo is poorly exposed. That flies in the face of just about every person that has ever reviewed the camera.

 

Here is a great comparison for you of the same photographs shot at the same time by the same photographer in the same lighting using the same settings, etc. etc., between the M9 and the MM: ISO Test: Leica M Monochrom vs. Leica M9 Have a look at that and then tell me there is no noise in the M9 shots compared to the MM shots at higher ISOs. It is quite apparent by ISO 640, and awful by ISO 1250.

 

BTW, this issue is not limited to Leica. I was pretty unhappy with the high ISO performance of my Canon 5Dmk2, but am extremely happy with the improved high ISO performance of its successor, the mk3. Likewise, I expect I will be much happier with the performance of the M-240 in this regard, just as I would be with the MM if I owned that camera.

[jaapv]

Hmm.. You may be overstating Erwin's position a bit:

 

Conclusion.

It is clear that the Nikon has the edge, a small one up to ISO 320, a bigger one up to ISO 640 and a major one from ISO 1250. The ISO 2500 is not really useable on the Leica M8/9 camera, but as a last desperate resort is is an option. There is a persistent tendency to hype up the performance of the Nikon high end digital SLR cameras as far as noise and dynamic range at higher ISO values is concerned. This is true above ISO 1250, but at lower values the competitive advantage compared to the Leica M8/9 is not very pronounced, al be it visible

( Italics by me)

[Dirk Mandeville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmm.. You may be overstating Erwin's position a bit:

 

( Italics by me)

 

No, not really.

 

It is clear that the Nikon has the edge, a small one up to ISO 320, [a bigger one up to ISO 640 and a major one from ISO 1250. The ISO 2500 is not really useable on the Leica M8/9 camera, but as a last desperate resort is is an option. There is a persistent tendency to hype up the performance of the Nikon high end digital SLR cameras as far as noise and dynamic range at higher ISO values is concerned. This is true above ISO 1250, but at lower values the competitive advantage compared to the Leica M8/9 is not very pronounced, al be it visible

(italics by me)

 

At ISO 1250, he found that the M9 had a usable dynamic range for maximum quality of just under four stops, vs. just under 6 stops for the D3X.

 

Did you look at the post I referenced comparing the M9 & MM?

[jaapv]

I do my own comparisons.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I do my own comparisons.

 

Great. Why not post some shot at higher ISO's with both cameras?

[Dirk Mandeville]

A chart, posted in another thread, located HERE, shows empirically what I am talking about. At ISO 1250, the M9 has almost 5% more noise than the MM, 4% more at ISO 1600, 6% at 2000 and a whopping 9% more noise at ISO 2500. The curve of the M9 gets a lot steeper from 800 ISO on up, confirming what many of us have said about the noise getting unusable above that number. The noise level of the M9 at 800 ISO isn't hit by the MM until ISO 1600. The noise level of the M9 at 1250 isn't hit by the MM until over 2500. These differences are real, and you can see them in the results from both cameras.

[FrozenInTime]

A chart, posted in another thread, located HERE, shows empirically what I am talking about. At ISO 1250, the M9 has almost 5% more noise than the MM, 4% more at ISO 1600, 6% at 2000 and a whopping 9% more noise at ISO 2500. The curve of the M9 gets a lot steeper from 800 ISO on up, confirming what many of us have said about the noise getting unusable above that number. The noise level of the M9 at 800 ISO isn't hit by the MM until ISO 1600. The noise level of the M9 at 1250 isn't hit by the MM until over 2500. These differences are real, and you can see them in the results from both cameras.

 

Those curves are also probably for white light. I suspect that in narrow spectrum lighting the MM noise advantage grows even more significantly.

 

I shudder to think how good a M-240 based CMOS Monochrom M would be ... a few years wait for that to happen though

[andym911]

I'm sure you can post a link, if you chose to do so. However, something tells me we will never see them ...I.e. dog ate the files, fire destroyed the computer, etc.

 

You could actually place your website as part of your signature with a link. I would really like to see these Andy.

 

will post a link just for you

[thighslapper]

I have to confess the Farkas comparison is interesting but rather daft (Dirks post).

 

As usual the focal point (which shows the biggest issues) is a magnified poorly illuminated peripheral chunk of a rather untypical scenario.

 

Ok, so we all want to take noiseless pictures in the dark .... but doesn't that defeat the whole point ...... if it doesn't look like it's dark then you've lost the basic character of the photo.... washed out colours and some noise actually help provide the required ambience.

 

I have used 2500 on the M9 in daytime by accident and if it wasn't for the slightly odd rather over-vibrant look, I would not not have noticed. The MM looks as it produces exemplary images even in very low light and completely suited to B&W rendition of that sort of subject matter.

 

It's certainly a camera for those with deep pockets, but like many premium priced products you are buying into a concept and a specific mind-set that makes direct comparisons with other gear in another price bracket a bit meaningless.

 

Being forced to think in terms of tonal values and other factors that the laziness of automated digital photography has made us all forget can only be a good thing....

[Dirk Mandeville]

Ok, so we all want to take noiseless pictures in the dark .... but doesn't that defeat the whole point ...... if it doesn't look like it's dark then you've lost the basic character of the photo.... washed out colours and some noise actually help provide the required ambience.

 

I fail to see what digital noise has to do with the perception of light in a photograph (in reference to your comment that "if it doesn't look like it is dark then you've lost the basic character of the photo.") That is an issue of proper exposure, not whether or not you have digital sensor noise visible in the shadows. Since we are talking about monochrome pictures (or M9 monochrome conversions), I am not sure what washed out colors has to do with anything either. Ambiance in a monochrome photo is created by composition, light, and shadow. Noise is an artifact. Personally, I don't find it to be attractive or to create ambiance.

 

To me, the benefit of the high iso capabilities of the MM is that you can take photos in low light that you simply could not take with a film camera or with an M9. You can use faster shutter speeds to stop movement in low light. You get a clean representation of the light and the shadow, with exquisite detail in both. I don't think you get those benefits trying to shoot with an M9 in dim light at ISO 2500, because the amount of noise ruins the picture in my opinion. Your tastes may vary.

[Paul J]

The more I see Monochrom results the ore I want one.

[01af]

The more I see Monochrom results the ore I want one.

If you want one because you're seeing nice results from others then you want it for the wrong reasons.

[Paul J]

If you want one because you're seeing nice results from others then you want it for the wrong reasons.

 

I see it's it's incredible sharpness and definition, silky tonality, ultra real rendering and ridiculously low high ISO noise. It's ability to have beautiful tonal separation and it's ability to be pushed around more than any camera I own. That it produces images in definition that are one step closer to reality than the M9. Perhaps I'm missing something. Why are these reasons wrong?

[01af]

Perhaps I'm missing something. Why are these reasons wrong?

Yes, you are missing something: The M Monochrom shoots black-and-white only.

 

If this camera was for you then you'd wanted one right from the beginning, regardless of what the image quality was (umm, okay—assuming it won't be worse than B/W-converted pictures out of the M9).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

Yes, you are missing something: The M Monochrom shoots black-and-white only.

 

If this camera was for you then you'd wanted one right from the beginning, regardless of what the image quality was (umm, okay—assuming it won't be worse than B/W-converted pictures out of the M9).

 

Relax my friend.

 

I'm not sure what is most telling. The fact you would buy a Monochrom "regardless of it's quality" or the fact you are somehow judging that I'm not a valid member for your prized pony club based on how much colour I shoot.

 

Having spent the first 10 years of my photographic life shooting almost exclusively black and white you can rest assured knowing I'm 'down with your posse'. While the mono/colour ratio is less today I would also hazard a guess that I've developed and printed more black and white than you've had hot dinners.

[colonel]

Unfortunately i cannot post images from my d40 here... One of the best and cheapest slr Nikon ever made, with a cult following ,with reason.

Then we could put things into perspective.

If people want to spend thousands of dollars on a monochrome sensor then fine.

I find it laughable but each to their own.

A decreased DR is a step back however you look at it.

My humble M8 will always win over the MM on DR and that is , for me, the most significant element in digital photography.

A couple of squeaky clean images in the web means very little to users of other cameras who have had this capability for a few years already .

All this fuss about the MM is unusual to say the least..

As I said earlier , it will be a short lived trend IMO.

Just my simplistic view...

Andy

 

A simplistic view indeed!

Last time I left this thread it was in appreciation of the great pictures, not sure what is behind the rubbishing posting impulse about a camera you have obviously never used

The monochrome sensor has a better tonal range then any B&W conversion from a beyer filter. I am not sure where you obtained your DR chestnut!

The tonal range and fine detail of the MM is incredible, certainly better then my D800E, and if I remember correctly my old M8, and, for the moment, it has one of the best ISO responses of any camera on the market.